New questions have been raised as to whether or not former President Donald Trump will ever be sentenced after being convicted in May for a hush-money scheme after New York Judge Juan Merchan agreed to give Manhattan prosecutors and Donald Trump’s lawyers a week to discuss how to proceed. The judge’s decision came after Trump was reelected last week. This is the latest instance of the sentencing being delayed.
Legal Cases in Jeopardy
It is doubtful that Trump will face legal repercussions after he was declared the winner in last week’s election.
Possibly in peril is Trump’s sentencing after his criminal conviction in May in New York.
Additionally, discussions about how the federal cases against Trump will be ended are being held between the Justice Department leadership and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The legal fights over the status of Fulton County District Fani Willis have delayed the Georgia election subversion case. This follows the charges being dropped by the Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, in the case against Trump for the mishandling of classified documents.
Another Sentencing Delay in New York Case
Judge Juan Merchan has set Tuesday, November 19, as the deadline for Trump’s lawyers and the district attorney’s office to present new arguments on how Trump’s election victory impacts the case. Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan district attorney’s office agreed on the delay, giving both sides time to plan their arguments.
Following this summer’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Merchan was expected to rule on Tuesday, November 12, whether to overturn the fraud conviction.
“The people agree that these are unprecedented circumstances and the arguments raised by defense counsel in correspondence to the People on Friday require careful consideration to ensure that any further steps in this proceeding appropriately balance the competing interests of (1) a jury verdict of guilt following a trial that has the presumption of regularity; and (2) the Office of the President,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote to Judge Merchan.
According to correspondence posted on Tuesday by the court, Emil Bove, Trump’s attorney, wrote that the charges against Trump should be dismissed. “The stay and dismissal are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern,” Bove argued.
Trump’s Argument on the Case
The United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2024 that Trump should receive broad immunity for official acts during his time in office. Trump’s lawyers filed a motion to vacate his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, and Judge Merchan was set to rule on Tuesday regarding the motion.
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision has successfully helped Trump’s lawyers delay his sentencing twice and has also negatively impacted Trump’s federal election subversion case in Washington, DC, which has been indefinitely held up.
Because the district attorney’s office used evidence related to Trump’s official acts as president, he argues that the charges should be dismissed or his convection vacated because that evidence should not have been presented to the jury.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump’s tweets while president, along with the testimonies of White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, should not have been presented to the jury. In their filing, the lawyers wrote that the Supreme Court ruling “specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’”
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Response
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s response argues that the conviction should stand because the evidence presented to the jury at trial was “overwhelming.” The prosecutors say that falsifying business records to interfere in the 2015 presidential election is not an official act of the president. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling should not apply to the case.
Additionally, Trump’s lawyers did not object during the trial to the evidence now in question, so they should not be allowed to challenge it after the verdict.
